Sunday, June 28, 2015
Voting for Conservative Politicians
The National Journal has an article about "Anthony Kennedy's Long History of Protecting Gay Rights". You know who that is, right? He's the Supreme Court Justice who everyone is quoting in his remarks overthrowing marriage in America. Do you know who appointed Justice Kennedy to the court? It was President Reagan. Now, everyone keeps telling, "You need to vote for conservatives even if you don't agree with them because we need to get conservative justices in the courts." I'm not buying it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, you should buy it. It is impossible to guarantee the personal feelings of anyone. But we do the best we can based on the information we have available to us. And what does this information tell us? It tells us that our best shot at getting good leadership and legislation is through support for the most conservative candidates out there (assuming a definition of "conservative" on which I think we both, at least generally, agree). That info also tells us, conversely, that non-conservatives are VERY likely to legislate, lead or act in a manner that is most contradictory to Christian and/or conservative values.
So, if we do our best in studying the candidates, we might still end up with a Kennedy, but if we let another Obama in the door, we are pretty much guaranteed we'll get a Kagan or Sotomayor.
Vote conservatively. Make the case to friends and associates why they also must vote conservatively. Make the case that we all must do so even on the most local level, if not only on the most local level.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it as if we're Siamese Twins.
Three points.
1. You said that like "end up with a Kennedy" was a good thing. The point of the post was that it is not.
2. There hasn't been a conservative candidate that I could support in decades. What we are given is the best of the worst and I'm told I need to at least get that "lesser of two evils" because it's better than the other. I'm not buying it.
3. I'm not buying that voting for "conservative politicians" (in quotes because by the time I get to make a choice, anything actually conservative is no longer in the running) will either get us conservative judges or help in any of our other problems. These are not political problems. They're sin problems, problems of the heart that is post-Christian America. No amount of voting will help that problem.
Three responses:
1. Not even close. I merely said it was a possibility, not that the possibility would be a good thing. Sheesh!
2. I haven't been thrilled with the choices either in the past. But here's the real problem with the "lesser of two evils" approach: it's the assumption that it is the be all/end all strategy for success. It isn't. It is a small part of the overall plan to get to the best possible leader(s) we can get. In one race there may someday be a standout no-brainer choice, while the rest of the other races provide only "lesser of two evils" choices. While the lesser may still be evil, I don't believe we're better off with allowing the greater of the two evils to prevail. It's the difference between choosing between having the garage blow up versus the whole house. Neither is good. One is decidedly worse. Doing nothing while letting the worse get elected is doing wrong. One isn't required to like the choice, or even the choosing. But the choice of choosing neither is neither a good choice nor is it not "not" choosing. Part of the reason Obama is in the White House is because some didn't like the right-wing candidates and sat out. To them I'd say "thanks for nothing" except that "nothing" would have been better than Obama.
3. There's no guarantees in life, but that doesn't justify or rationalize not participating the process, even if the process doesn't result in great choices. Again, not choosing is choosing the greater of two evils. Voting is but one way for Christians to be salt and light, to evangelize, to influence the world in which we live. If we're not going to spend our every waking moment doing the John the Baptist thing, we have to take our shots where we can, every time an opportunity presents itself. Voting is but one way. Always choosing the best available, even if the best is the lesser of two evils, is essential in having any hope of dealing with the sin problem of which you speak. Despite what separationists hope and demand, I intend to push my agenda, which I like to believe is His agenda, in every sphere of life in which I have any influence at all. While I look for the best, I will support the less bad against the worst.
Marshall,
Just to be clear, I have not yet failed to participate in the process. However, I need to point out that voting for a person who "can't win" based on principle is "participating in the process". I haven't done that, yet, either, but it is participation. That, they tell me, is wrong.
Current trends suggest that our best option for president in 2016 will be Jeb Bush. This man is a RINO who supports little that I do and much that I oppose. So, here's how it goes (every.single.time). We vote in "the lesser of two evils" as part of some grand scheme to improve things. This "lesser of two evils", however, becomes a symbol of "conservative" because, after all, we voted him in. So "conservative" shifts from where it was to this new ... evil. It has been said in both religion and politics, "Do you want to know where the conservatives will be in 7 years? Look at where the liberals are today." This is what we're voting for with the "lesser evil" vote. A vote for a genuinely good candidate is not a vote for a worse-case candidate.
My primary point, however, when I say, "I don't buy it" is not the argument, but the faith. I do not/will not put my faith in voting for a lesser evil based on some nebulous "We can get a more conservative judge in office" strategy. It has proven false. And the problem isn't judges. I will put my faith in God ... even if that means America has to face God's judgment.
One other thing, Marshall. In all of our interactions -- yours and mine -- imagine me with a sort of half-smile on my face. I am rarely stern or upset and never have been with you. If you see something that looks like it might be, assume it is intended in humor.
I have found myself in recent years voting against rather than voting for. I find that anything other than Republican or Democrat are not viable parties, so voting for them essentially becomes a vote for Demokrat. I will never, ever vote for a member of the Demokratic party because of their party platform. Therefore, I have to vote against them by putting my vote in a column which keep them from getting it.
I'm unclear how voting for the lesser of two evils is good in any way or Christian. I have learned in the last few years that my vote doesn't matter because it is no longer about the will of the people but the volume of the voices. In California, I voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman as constitutional, as did the majority of Californians. But that vote was struck down without any say from the people.
Secondly, voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't hopefully lead to a good candidate. If the society we live in is getting worse, then the candidates can only get worse.
Finally, whether or not I vote has nothing to do with being salt and light. I do that by the way I live, not by who I vote for. I fully expect this nation to enjoy destroying itself. Not voting isn't doing nothing. Not voting is my way of saying we're doomed either way , let God sort them out (if I didn't vote).
One more thing, the judge in the post was a conservative, and still went the liberal way. Which proves that putting mildly conservative people in office means nothing for our cause. Unless we get some actual believers into political seats that have genuine authority, voting for the lesser of two evils is the same as voting for evil.
Post a Comment